MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of nanoparticles in mice using an integrated photoacoustic micro‐ultrasound system

2012· article· en· W3174027972 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Sun, Andrew Heinmiller, Dave Bates, Andrew Needles, Catherine Theodoropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsFujiFilm VisualSonics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanorodNanoparticlePhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineColloidal goldUltrasoundFluorescenceMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringNanotechnologyContrast-enhanced ultrasoundIn vivoChemistryBiophysicsOpticsRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VisualSonics have recently developed a photoacoustic imaging system (VevoLAZR, Toronto, Canada) that combines the sensitivity of optical imaging modalities and the high resolution of micro‐ultrasound. The high sensitivity enables detection of nano‐scaled contrast agents. Due to their small size, nanoparticles likely can cross the leaky tumor microvasculature and deposit in the extra‐ and intracellular space. This presents countless potential benefits in cancer therapy. Using VevoLAZR we investigated the use of various gold nanoparticles and common optical fluorescent dyes as photoacoustic contrast agents in a vessel phantom study. We also injected gold nanorods intravenously in mice bearing tumors and investigated the preferential accumulation of these nanoparticles in the tumor tissue. Tumor perfusion was also quantified using ultrasound contrast imaging. Gold nanorods showed the greatest photoacoustic intensity amongst the nanoparticles tested. Optical fluorescent dyes used were also readily detectable in photoacoustic imaging. In the tumor study, preferential accumulation of gold nanorods was observed in the tumor relative to mammary tissue. Interestingly, tumor perfusion appeared to be inversely correlated with amount of gold nanorod accumulation. Collectively, we have demonstrated photoacoustics as a novel and powerful tool to detect and quantify nanoparticles in mice tumors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207